Magic Circles Taught by Zondervan & Seeker pastor Mark Batterson

[peacebringer]

Heh,
couple things, There are lot so churches that use Alpha and believers who have engaged without any awareness of the problematic roots. So a church using Alpha does not immediately mean involvement with new age.

Not that being said, he is involved with National Prayer breakfast, however a lot of folks participate in that without awareness of the roots to the Noetic. There are plenty of deceptions out there. All I Know is what my impression is currently. It is my impression and not designitating as anything have discerned clearly. My impression is that of one who went off on own path and ideals.

Also I do not like use of the "mystic/contemplative" pejorative as well. It is as damaging and a "charasmatic" "tongue speaking" pejoratives that have existed. There are sincere folks who get caught up in these webs. The use of pejoratives really does nothing to influence anyone from not going down that path.

[micah719]

The real sheep hear HIS voice and run from the fakes. No exceptions. It is one thing to fall into error, it is another to continue in it when notified.

[OnceWasLost]

Heh,
couple things, There are lot so churches that use Alpha and believers who have engaged without any awareness of the problematic roots. So a church using Alpha does not immediately mean involvement with new age.

Not that being said, he is involved with National Prayer breakfast, however a lot of folks participate in that without awareness of the roots to the Noetic. There are plenty of deceptions out there. All I Know is what my impression is currently. It is my impression and not designitating as anything have discerned clearly. My impression is that of one who went off on own path and ideals.

Also I do not like use of the "mystic/contemplative" pejorative as well. It is as damaging and a "charasmatic" "tongue speaking" pejoratives that have existed. There are sincere folks who get caught up in these webs. The use of pejoratives really does nothing to influence anyone from not going down that path.

Contemplative/mystic used as a pejorative is truth in advertizing. Calling any error by name (they coined the phrase BTW) is essential in identifying the error.

People who are sincerely involved are no less sincerely misled. I hold these views in great contempt as they are a perversion of true Spirituality. Error is error no matter the intent, and just because someone does not grasp the deception makes it no less so.

If people are not led astray by these practices it is in spite of the best attempts of satan to use this perverted spirituality. Bereans would not be mislead, so as mean as it sounds, people fall to these errors because they do not follow the example of Acts 17:11

[peacebringer]

The real sheep hear HIS voice and run from the fakes. No exceptions. It is one thing to fall into error, it is another to continue in it when notified.

I understand what you are saying, but couple things to be careful of. There is the propensity for pride. "I didn't fall for that" or "I am one truly listening to His voice" in some of these areas and we all easily fall prey to such temptations. It is also easy to say "shame on you" for continuing on with the error. It is a responsibility to point out the errors, and say this is wrong and why. It is another to say, this is wrong and shame on you for buying it. Again, noting that there is a spectrum and differences. Some proclaim all of "tongues" as error, others not. Yet there is clear seeking of "external" experience with God that is an error. Same goes for "internal" right now anything that borders on "contemplative" is labeled as "wrong" with no real sound discernment. No describing what is wrong and why? No even examing what folks are saying and pointing out errors. Rather they are wrong and engaging in whatever stereotype that want to name. So I ask you, is such behavior in the name of discerment acting in both "truth" and "love." So it is easy to say "sheep" know his voice and "another thing to keep following in it" it is another to engage in a sound examination. Also what better serves those deceived, the use of labels and lack of examination or throwing out stereotypes and conclusions based on reactions to minor details?

[peacebringer]

Contemplative/mystic used as a pejorative is truth in advertizing. Calling any error by name (they coined the phrase BTW) is essential in identifying the error.

People who are sincerely involved are no less sincerely misled. I hold these views in great contempt as they are a perversion of true Spirituality. Error is error no matter the intent, and just because someone does not grasp the deception makes it no less so.

If people are not led astray by these practices it is in spite of the best attempts of satan to use this perverted spirituality. Bereans would not be mislead, so as mean as it sounds, people fall to these errors because they do not follow the example of Acts 17:11

But it is not truthful to take and lump a broad category and say here is the "boogy man." There is a wide world of error in the "inner seeking" just as much as there is in the "external seeking" Yet, can you proclaim all that do so are deceivers and deceived. I remember years ago, "imagery" was a big thing talked about as a great evil. Any mental images have to be new age. I kind of thought that way since my mind does not think visually. So to me it was some great "other." Yet, God made me aware that actually most people think visually. God gave us imagination. So there is nothing "msytic" or "new age" about images a brain can create. It is a matter of what is done with them and what each person opens up to.

Now you mention True Spirituality and a Pervesion of same. And true interactions with God do get perverted for sure. It happens throughout all of churchhood and EVERY demonimiation has pervision.

Now bringing this back to Mark Batterson's book. There is a world of error and "marketing a metaphor" going on. He used an anagolgy of "flesh" driven action making demands of God. I find the whole presentation to be one that is flawed. However, I find it to be rather disengeous to go throwing around "labels" and suggest envoking "magic circles" and other pejoratives taht really does the body of Christ a disservice. If you think he is actually advocating magic circles explain how, give the details. Now granted that takes time and work. It is far easier to label and throw it out there. Can you honeslty tell me that the Bereans simply started throwing around labels, or did they fully examine, take each piece. Note that the Bereans are different than Ephesus, who got more caught up in the "rightness" of things and lost sight of the gloried value of loving Jesus.

[JoelH]

Heh,
couple things, There are lot so churches that use Alpha and believers who have engaged without any awareness of the problematic roots. So a church using Alpha does not immediately mean involvement with new age.

Hi peacebringer, there are a lot of doctrinal issues with Alpha per se, chiefly it doesn't recognize how serious sin is, and thereby underplays the purpose of Jesus' death of the cross for believers.

Christianity Explored (CE) is a much better alternative:

Christianity Explored | One life, what's it all about?

This article explains why CE is superior to Alpha:

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

...it [CE] makes clear that there are two clear distinctives, which make Christianity Explored quite different from Alpha. The first is the fact that it seeks to teach Mark's gospel. The second is that it seeks to teach the wonder of God's grace against the background of our sin and God's judgment....

...

What can be wrong with Alpha proclaiming this glorious Biblical truth of God's love? Does not the apostle John state 'God is love' (1 John 4:16)'? How can this be a problem? It is only a problem if this is the only characteristic of God which is emphasised. Sadly this appears to be true of Alpha. To be fair we must note that the Alpha material does also speak of God's justice and other attributes of His character, but the overwhelming message of the course is that God is love.

Yet the Bible is clear that love is not the only attribute of the God who has revealed himself in creation and in the Scriptures. There is much that we could say about the God of the Scriptures, and yet Alpha appears to assume His existence rather than describe His character. So there is nothing in the course about Him being our Creator and all that the Bible unpacks from this great truth, namely that He is the great King and Sovereign over all that He has made. Hand makes the point well when he writes: 'In Alpha God is simply introduced to us as the one who can help us rather than as the self-existent and eternally glorious Maker of heaven and earth.'

Alongside the absence of God being our Creator is a failure to teach God's holiness. This is extraordinary given the fact that 'God is Holy' is taught far more frequently in Scripture that 'God is Love'. Indeed the adjective used most frequently in Scripture to describe God is 'holy'. At the risk of being accused of divorcing God's holiness from God's love, it is necessary to see the connection between these two aspects of God's character. The God of the Bible is a God of holiness whose love is all the more remarkable in that it is bestowed on upon wicked sinners. Indeed when we remove the holiness of God we undermine the love of God.

By contrast, Christianity Explored seeks to introduce even in the first week to the truth that God is our creator and has revealed Himself uniquely in Jesus Christ. Moreover, the value of working through Mark's gospel is quickly seen as we discover the awesome power and authority of this God-man, and realise that to be in rebellion against Him is a deeply serious business. To quote from the talk in week four, 'God is a God of holiness, of blazing purity, and he hates what is evil. When it comes to evil he doesn't lean back in a rocking chair and pretend nothing has happened, like a benevolent grandfather. No, evil matters to God.'

...

I believe CE is fairly new to the United States. It was only launched Stateside in 2011 with Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller (yes Keller is a big red flag, although I know DeYoung is basically sound) etc starting to promote it. Have a look and see if it suits your church.

[micah719]

I understand what you are saying, but couple things to be careful of. There is the propensity for pride. "I didn't fall for that" or "I am one truly listening to His voice" in some of these areas and we all easily fall prey to such temptations. It is also easy to say "shame on you" for continuing on with the error. It is a responsibility to point out the errors, and say this is wrong and why. It is another to say, this is wrong and shame on you for buying it. Again, noting that there is a spectrum and differences. Some proclaim all of "tongues" as error, others not. Yet there is clear seeking of "external" experience with God that is an error. Same goes for "internal" right now anything that borders on "contemplative" is labeled as "wrong" with no real sound discernment. No describing what is wrong and why? No even examing what folks are saying and pointing out errors. Rather they are wrong and engaging in whatever stereotype that want to name. So I ask you, is such behavior in the name of discerment acting in both "truth" and "love." So it is easy to say "sheep" know his voice and "another thing to keep following in it" it is another to engage in a sound examination. Also what better serves those deceived, the use of labels and lack of examination or throwing out stereotypes and conclusions based on reactions to minor details?

Yes, I hear you loud and clear. Agreed, there is great danger when seeing a brother fall into error and sin and deception, of pride or hypocrisy or unloving harshness. We are not inventors of sound doctrine, we are merely receivers of grace gifts, and the Giver distributes to whom He will in measure according to His purpose. There is another danger, namely of fearing to speak up about things that are wrong, and giving room for error and being lenient toward the ever-present infiltrators and deceivers. The enemy knows Scripture far better than we, but we hold the advantage if we study it diligently and listen to The Holy Spirit and obey...the devil and his host do not have the illumination of The Spirit but can come up with some very enticing twisting of Scripture and incredibly subtle lies. Yet we have The Lord's promise that we will not walk in darkness, that we will be able to recognise the false and know surely what His will is. The false teachers will of course accuse and blame and pretend innocence and purity when confronted...they are at their most dangerous when they can appear as servants of light and resent when true Light shines on them and their cunning lies. Each generation of believers has to re-fight the same old battles over again, in new wrappings and combinations; the longer it goes on the worse it gets, the harder it is to untangle the weaving of various strands of rubbish. The church age is compared to three measures of fine meal which a woman mixed with leaven....at the end, the whole lump is leavened. Some try to interpret this as meaning the church grows like leaven in meal, but consider the whole parable...it surely cannot mean that at the end of the church age the whole world is converted, else it contradicts all the Scriptures speaking of widespread apostacy and cold agape and lukewarmness and false teachers and itching ears. The woman is the harlot, leaven is deception and hypocrisy, and as the end nears the proportion of unleavened meal gets less and less. Hence the encouragement to the Philadelphians who had little power but still clung to His Name (Jesus=Jehova is The Saviour=He will save His people from their sins) and did not deny His word....meaning the false believers were/are doing these things, and so successfully that the Philadelphians needed strengthening in the midst of their trials.

The OP is about Zondervan (purveyor or much antiChristian poison....antiChristian in the sense of instead-of Christian) and one of the current earscratchers and one particular flavour of spiritual poison. Somehow the thread is turning into a touch-not discussion with generalised warnings of over-reaction and accusations of poor discernment and tarring with a broad brush. Ok, let's get to specifics then.

Tongues: a lot of nonsense about nowadays. Originally, Biblically, it was given as a sign to unbelievers and to Jews. It was a miracle of utterance of known human languages, not ecstatic gibberish or a private prayer language, and it pretty much ceased by late Acts because it is never mentioned much, just like healing which Paul was no longer able to use because Onesimus was rather sick and he also had his own thorn in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion, neither does God approve or ignore disorder in His church, in fact He strongly warns against it. Ecstatic utterances are known in many of the false religions, as are the other shameful "manifestations" like rolling about, animal behaviour, vague and contradictory and antiScriptural "prophecies". I can't find any Scripture that says definitively the gifts of The Spirit have ceased, but I do read a lot about lying signs and wonders being a characteristic of the last of the last days. I read it is not permitted to prohibit tongues speaking and we may not despise prophecying, but I also read a lot about the telltale signs of false prophets, false teaching and how to and how not to deal with them. Again, the Philadelphians are consoled about their little strength, and the Laodiceans don't seem to need anything anyway, they're set already (they think), and Sardis is mostly stone dead. Thyatira is overflowing with wierdness, Pergamos is the same, Smyrna is getting crushed and has enough spectacular stuff going on not to need excitements, and Ephesus has only just begun the slide. The excitements of false religion are nothing new, they are clearly described in Scripture and crop up across church history, if you have a heart and mind to look and discern. With the massive apostacy, something is needed to give the false professors some outward form of religion, since they are devoid of any genuine power.

This prayer circle stuff is elementary garbage. Come on, how much discernment and Scriptural knowledge do you really need to recognise that The Lord Jesus Christ never did it, the disciples and apostles never did it, the OT believers never did it, therefore why should we??? And why is it even a big topic of discussion, even dispute about whether it is genuine or not? This is one of those times where I repeat a warning....beware the obvious pitfalls lest you miss the cunningly hidden ones. It is like discovering a landmine and thinking you're "safe now!", without taking the little extra time to look for the other landmine laid under it, the boobytrap next to it, the command detonated mine on the other side of it, and the ambush all around it. Spot all those, but keep looking! We will not be safe until we are with The Lord, and our enemy is known for being subtle and smart, and increasingly desperate. If you look around on this site, the various posts, updates and the sites linked, you will get an idea and a feel for what's hot in Heresies'R'Us, and what is coming over the horizon, and what is getting stale. You can't expect a full detail briefing every post, and you can't expect spoonfeeding forever....learn to check everything over and over, especially when it sounds good. Learn the movers and shakers out there, their names and associations, their favourite toys and methodss, and never think you've got all the answers or puzzle pieces. The one thing you do have is the field manual (hopefully a good copy) and a radio link to HQ (hope you're on the right channel to the right HQ), by which to check everything else, including the folks in the ranks either side of you. Zondervan and Batterson are baby level stuff.....the fact that so many fall for them shows how woeful a time we live in. There is more dangeous stuff by far, let's skip the smokescreens and cardboard replicas.

1Co 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
1Co 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
1Th 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
1Th 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
1Th 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
1Th 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
1Th 5:16 Rejoice evermore.
1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
1Th 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1Th 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. The first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.

[OnceWasLost]

But it is not truthful to take and lump a broad category and say here is the "boogy man." There is a wide world of error in the "inner seeking" just as much as there is in the "external seeking" Yet, can you proclaim all that do so are deceivers and deceived. I remember years ago, "imagery" was a big thing talked about as a great evil. Any mental images have to be new age. I kind of thought that way since my mind does not think visually. So to me it was some great "other." Yet, God made me aware that actually most people think visually. God gave us imagination. So there is nothing "msytic" or "new age" about images a brain can create. It is a matter of what is done with them and what each person opens up to.

Now you mention True Spirituality and a Pervesion of same. And true interactions with God do get perverted for sure. It happens throughout all of churchhood and EVERY demonimiation has pervision.

Now bringing this back to Mark Batterson's book. There is a world of error and "marketing a metaphor" going on. He used an anagolgy of "flesh" driven action making demands of God. I find the whole presentation to be one that is flawed. However, I find it to be rather disengeous to go throwing around "labels" and suggest envoking "magic circles" and other pejoratives taht really does the body of Christ a disservice. If you think he is actually advocating magic circles explain how, give the details. Now granted that takes time and work. It is far easier to label and throw it out there. Can you honeslty tell me that the Bereans simply started throwing around labels, or did they fully examine, take each piece. Note that the Bereans are different than Ephesus, who got more caught up in the "rightness" of things and lost sight of the gloried value of loving Jesus.

We know little about the Bereans, so how about looking at Paul? According to your apparent view, he was not on the right track as he used "pejoratives". I get it, you think we are too harsh and are making mountains out of mole hills. That's cool, but Scripture shows his whole schtick has no Biblical foundation and relies on a mystical view of Spirituality.

Facts are facts and cannot be denied, only excused as misunderstood by those unwilling to see the error.

By the way, there is a difference between seeing something visually and visualization.

I for one am agnostic as to whether he thinks there is a "magical" element to it, or just some simple gimmicky visual point of focus thing that his types love.

Just because all denominations have problems doesn't minimize that they need to be exposed. If you disagree with correction coming against error and false teachers, then take Paul's writings in total and disregard them, they were written for the express purpose of correcting error.

This trying to be diplomatic and not call out clear error only ensures we will get much more of the same.

I would love to deal with great specifics, point by point, with all the new spirituality taking place in the modern church with chapter and verse on all of them. That would effectively dismiss the argument you insist on making that we are broad brushing and creating a "boogie man". I do however fear that you would still be unpersuaded, so why bother?

[peacebringer]

We know little about the Bereans, so how about looking at Paul? According to your apparent view, he was not on the right track as he used "pejoratives". I get it, you think we are too harsh and are making mountains out of mole hills. That's cool, but Scripture shows his whole schtick has no Biblical foundation and relies on a mystical view of Spirituality.

Facts are facts and cannot be denied, only excused as misunderstood by those unwilling to see the error.

By the way, there is a difference between seeing something visually and visualization.

I for one am agnostic as to whether he thinks there is a "magical" element to it, or just some simple gimmicky visual point of focus thing that his types love.

Just because all denominations have problems doesn't minimize that they need to be exposed. If you disagree with correction coming against error and false teachers, then take Paul's writings in total and disregard them, they were written for the express purpose of correcting error.

This trying to be diplomatic and not call out clear error only ensures we will get much more of the same.

I would love to deal with great specifics, point by point, with all the new spirituality taking place in the modern church with chapter and verse on all of them. That would effectively dismiss the argument you insist on making that we are broad brushing and creating a "boogie man". I do however fear that you would still be unpersuaded, so why bother?

Brother, you miss the point entirely. Yes, Paul called out specific errors and he went at great lengths to correct the errors. Yes, Paul used strong language. What I am stating is that the simple placing a "label" on something without the proper teaching. A label of "Contemplatives" does nothing of value. It give no instruction. It gives no delineating what is wrong. See the crosswise blog for an example of "sound discerment" and explanations of what is wrong. CrossWise

And can you honestly tell me that the assumption jumping and lack of examination equates with anything that paul wrote, seriously that is justification. I am calling to high standards of examination, not just "sterotype" and "labeling." Or even excusing the heavy use of insults and sarcasm in the "name of discerment." Paul had harsh words for people who engaged in such behavior as well, did he not?

[OnceWasLost]

Brother, you miss the point entirely. Yes, Paul called out specific errors and he went at great lengths to correct the errors. Yes, Paul used strong language. What I am stating is that the simple placing a "label" on something without the proper teaching. A label of "Contemplatives" does nothing of value. It give no instruction. It gives no delineating what is wrong. See the crosswise blog for an example of "sound discerment" and explanations of what is wrong. CrossWise

And can you honestly tell me that the assumption jumping and lack of examination equates with anything that paul wrote, seriously that is justification. I am calling to high standards of examination, not just "sterotype" and "labeling." Or even excusing the heavy use of insults and sarcasm in the "name of discerment." Paul had harsh words for people who engaged in such behavior as well, did he not?

For crying out loud contemplative is what he is advocating, no different than if it was centering prayer, breath prayer, labyrinth walking, lectio divina etc. The subject of contemplative is huge with so many ways of altering ones state by focusing on something or an object, a center if you will. So there is no way not to classify it as a vein of contemplative without misidentifying it.

No matter what vehicle a person uses it all leads to the same dark place, no way to get around it. Subjectivism in prayer and using some mode or method to put oneself into an altered state is evil. It is Eastern in it's origin and no matter how Christianized it is dressed up by terms, it is not Biblical Spirituality.

[peacebringer]

Yes, I hear you loud and clear. Agreed, there is great danger when seeing a brother fall into error and sin and deception, of pride or hypocrisy or unloving harshness. We are not inventors of sound doctrine, we are merely receivers of grace gifts, and the Giver distributes to whom He will in measure according to His purpose. There is another danger, namely of fearing to speak up about things that are wrong, and giving room for error and being lenient toward the ever-present infiltrators and deceivers. The enemy knows Scripture far better than we, but we hold the advantage if we study it diligently and listen to The Holy Spirit and obey...the devil and his host do not have the illumination of The Spirit but can come up with some very enticing twisting of Scripture and incredibly subtle lies. Yet we have The Lord's promise that we will not walk in darkness, that we will be able to recognise the false and know surely what His will is. The false teachers will of course accuse and blame and pretend innocence and purity when confronted...they are at their most dangerous when they can appear as servants of light and resent when true Light shines on them and their cunning lies. Each generation of believers has to re-fight the same old battles over again, in new wrappings and combinations; the longer it goes on the worse it gets, the harder it is to untangle the weaving of various strands of rubbish. The church age is compared to three measures of fine meal which a woman mixed with leaven....at the end, the whole lump is leavened. Some try to interpret this as meaning the church grows like leaven in meal, but consider the whole parable...it surely cannot mean that at the end of the church age the whole world is converted, else it contradicts all the Scriptures speaking of widespread apostacy and cold agape and lukewarmness and false teachers and itching ears. The woman is the harlot, leaven is deception and hypocrisy, and as the end nears the proportion of unleavened meal gets less and less. Hence the encouragement to the Philadelphians who had little power but still clung to His Name (Jesus=Jehova is The Saviour=He will save His people from their sins) and did not deny His word....meaning the false believers were/are doing these things, and so successfully that the Philadelphians needed strengthening in the midst of their trials.

The OP is about Zondervan (purveyor or much antiChristian poison....antiChristian in the sense of instead-of Christian) and one of the current earscratchers and one particular flavour of spiritual poison. Somehow the thread is turning into a touch-not discussion with generalised warnings of over-reaction and accusations of poor discernment and tarring with a broad brush. Ok, let's get to specifics then.

Tongues: a lot of nonsense about nowadays. Originally, Biblically, it was given as a sign to unbelievers and to Jews. It was a miracle of utterance of known human languages, not ecstatic gibberish or a private prayer language, and it pretty much ceased by late Acts because it is never mentioned much, just like healing which Paul was no longer able to use because Onesimus was rather sick and he also had his own thorn in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion, neither does God approve or ignore disorder in His church, in fact He strongly warns against it. Ecstatic utterances are known in many of the false religions, as are the other shameful "manifestations" like rolling about, animal behaviour, vague and contradictory and antiScriptural "prophecies". I can't find any Scripture that says definitively the gifts of The Spirit have ceased, but I do read a lot about lying signs and wonders being a characteristic of the last of the last days. I read it is not permitted to prohibit tongues speaking and we may not despise prophecying, but I also read a lot about the telltale signs of false prophets, false teaching and how to and how not to deal with them. Again, the Philadelphians are consoled about their little strength, and the Laodiceans don't seem to need anything anyway, they're set already (they think), and Sardis is mostly stone dead. Thyatira is overflowing with wierdness, Pergamos is the same, Smyrna is getting crushed and has enough spectacular stuff going on not to need excitements, and Ephesus has only just begun the slide. The excitements of false religion are nothing new, they are clearly described in Scripture and crop up across church history, if you have a heart and mind to look and discern. With the massive apostacy, something is needed to give the false professors some outward form of religion, since they are devoid of any genuine power.

This prayer circle stuff is elementary garbage. Come on, how much discernment and Scriptural knowledge do you really need to recognise that The Lord Jesus Christ never did it, the disciples and apostles never did it, the OT believers never did it, therefore why should we??? And why is it even a big topic of discussion, even dispute about whether it is genuine or not? This is one of those times where I repeat a warning....beware the obvious pitfalls lest you miss the cunningly hidden ones. It is like discovering a landmine and thinking you're "safe now!", without taking the little extra time to look for the other landmine laid under it, the boobytrap next to it, the command detonated mine on the other side of it, and the ambush all around it. Spot all those, but keep looking! We will not be safe until we are with The Lord, and our enemy is known for being subtle and smart, and increasingly desperate. If you look around on this site, the various posts, updates and the sites linked, you will get an idea and a feel for what's hot in Heresies'R'Us, and what is coming over the horizon, and what is getting stale. You can't expect a full detail briefing every post, and you can't expect spoonfeeding forever....learn to check everything over and over, especially when it sounds good. Learn the movers and shakers out there, their names and associations, their favourite toys and methodss, and never think you've got all the answers or puzzle pieces. The one thing you do have is the field manual (hopefully a good copy) and a radio link to HQ (hope you're on the right channel to the right HQ), by which to check everything else, including the folks in the ranks either side of you. Zondervan and Batterson are baby level stuff.....the fact that so many fall for them shows how woeful a time we live in. There is more dangeous stuff by far, let's skip the smokescreens and cardboard replicas.

1Co 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
1Co 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
1Th 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
1Th 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
1Th 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
1Th 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
1Th 5:16 Rejoice evermore.
1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
1Th 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1Th 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. The first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.

Wow, you just went on a rant with knowing very little about me, what I think or do or what even aware of and engaged in a lot of assumptions here. I could respond to the varied diverse tangents and reactions, but the response rather gets to my point. FYI, I know fairly well the assorted threads of deception that impact the whole church to the point of every aspect of modern "evangical" church can be called in question. Getting back to the topic at Hand regarding Pastor Batterson, you make refence to suggesting that he is suggesting "drawing a circle" and praying out of it. Rather, he use the "metaphor" for persistance in prayer and "claiming" promises. Without reading a whit of what was writtern, you boadly proclaim what was never done.

Note, I have not once said that whatever Batterson has written in problem free, in fact referenced areas I find problematic without reading further. But I am not going to go around make bold proclaimations casting aspersions based on use of metaphor. Now, it is noteworthy that the use of lanaguage is very important. THere is a chance where there is some sublety and changing of meaning in the writing. If so, it is a deviation from previous writings. The book Primal, for example was an excellent call to loving God wholly and in turn loving others. It went about it at a tact and manner different than I would have and it resulted in deeper understanding as viewed the perspective. His book wild goose chase was similar. i have not felt drawn to either current book and at this rate would only invest in prayer circles to examine it in detail to see where is missing. I would say though that nothing he has written advocates "magic circles" by any stretch from may understanding. I have also stated I do not like the direction Mark Batterson has taken since leaving Multonomah Press for Zondervan. The fact that we are having this discussion in indicatative of such.

[peacebringer]

For crying out loud contemplative is what he is advocating, no different than if it was centering prayer, breath prayer, labyrinth walking, lectio divina etc. The subject of contemplative is huge with so many ways of altering ones state by focusing on something or an object, a center if you will. So there is no way not to classify it as a vein of contemplative without misidentifying it.

No matter what vehicle a person uses it all leads to the same dark place, no way to get around it. Subjectivism in prayer and using some mode or method to put oneself into an altered state is evil. It is Eastern in it's origin and no matter how Christianized it is dressed up by terms, it is not Biblical Spirituality.

Please give me the quotes that indicate that he is advocating "comtemplation" or stating such in what he wrote.

[peacebringer]

Hi peacebringer, there are a lot of doctrinal issues with Alpha per se, chiefly it doesn't recognize how serious sin is, and thereby underplays the purpose of Jesus' death of the cross for believers.

Christianity Explored (CE) is a much better alternative:

Christianity Explored | One life, what's it all about?

This article explains why CE is superior to Alpha:

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

...it [CE] makes clear that there are two clear distinctives, which make Christianity Explored quite different from Alpha. The first is the fact that it seeks to teach Mark's gospel. The second is that it seeks to teach the wonder of God's grace against the background of our sin and God's judgment....

...

What can be wrong with Alpha proclaiming this glorious Biblical truth of God's love? Does not the apostle John state 'God is love' (1 John 4:16)'? How can this be a problem? It is only a problem if this is the only characteristic of God which is emphasised. Sadly this appears to be true of Alpha. To be fair we must note that the Alpha material does also speak of God's justice and other attributes of His character, but the overwhelming message of the course is that God is love.

Yet the Bible is clear that love is not the only attribute of the God who has revealed himself in creation and in the Scriptures. There is much that we could say about the God of the Scriptures, and yet Alpha appears to assume His existence rather than describe His character. So there is nothing in the course about Him being our Creator and all that the Bible unpacks from this great truth, namely that He is the great King and Sovereign over all that He has made. Hand makes the point well when he writes: 'In Alpha God is simply introduced to us as the one who can help us rather than as the self-existent and eternally glorious Maker of heaven and earth.'

Alongside the absence of God being our Creator is a failure to teach God's holiness. This is extraordinary given the fact that 'God is Holy' is taught far more frequently in Scripture that 'God is Love'. Indeed the adjective used most frequently in Scripture to describe God is 'holy'. At the risk of being accused of divorcing God's holiness from God's love, it is necessary to see the connection between these two aspects of God's character. The God of the Bible is a God of holiness whose love is all the more remarkable in that it is bestowed on upon wicked sinners. Indeed when we remove the holiness of God we undermine the love of God.

By contrast, Christianity Explored seeks to introduce even in the first week to the truth that God is our creator and has revealed Himself uniquely in Jesus Christ. Moreover, the value of working through Mark's gospel is quickly seen as we discover the awesome power and authority of this God-man, and realise that to be in rebellion against Him is a deeply serious business. To quote from the talk in week four, 'God is a God of holiness, of blazing purity, and he hates what is evil. When it comes to evil he doesn't lean back in a rocking chair and pretend nothing has happened, like a benevolent grandfather. No, evil matters to God.'

...

I believe CE is fairly new to the United States. It was only launched Stateside in 2011 with Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller (yes Keller is a big red flag, although I know DeYoung is basically sound) etc starting to promote it. Have a look and see if it suits your church.

I am well aware of the difficulties and roots in alpha. However, most that use it are not aware of all the roots and problems. Most churches using it are doing so to try and reach out to those in community, and some do turn to Jesus.

Glad to hear of Christianity explored. Interesting that you refer to "Keller" as big red flag when He is pointed to often in reformed circles and over at monergism.com.

[OnceWasLost]

Please give me the quotes that indicate that he is advocating "comtemplation" or stating such in what he wrote.

Who said contemplation? I said contemplative, there is a difference. Those who engage in it don't deny the term, for the most part, but they will use Spiritual Formation of which meditation, prayer, silence/solitude are mystical vehicle to enter a place where God can speak to you. They point to Psalm 46:10 as a proof text, but how they become "still" is where the mysticism come in.

In his case the circle becomes what is used to focus or center the prayer. His twist is to add the element of paying faith into something in the same manner that the prosperity WOF types do. Before the first minute is over in the video he tells us he is going to show us a "new way to pray". Really? something new, the old way is inferior? Drawing circles around people whether literal or figurative and speaking faith into them is Biblical?

I can't believe this needs further discussion to prove the point.

[peacebringer]

Who said contemplation? I said contemplative, there is a difference. Those who engage in it don't deny the term, for the most part, but they will use Spiritual Formation of which meditation, prayer, silence/solitude are mystical vehicle to enter a place where God can speak to you. They point to Psalm 46:10 as a proof text, but how they become "still" is where the mysticism come in.

In his case the circle becomes what is used to focus or center the prayer. His twist is to add the element of paying faith into something in the same manner that the prosperity WOF types do. Before the first minute is over in the video he tells us he is going to show us a "new way to pray". Really? something new, the old way is inferior? Drawing circles around people whether literal or figurative and speaking faith into them is Biblical?

I can't believe this needs further discussion to prove the point.

Again, please indicate where he says such a thing. You are claiming he is saying to "empty your mind" with only a focus on your "big prayer" as a "mantra" then? My point is to soundly point out exactly what he says and what the issue is. I understand that is a lot of work. Far easier to make a quick decision and to put out labels and create arguements.

Now here may be an example of something he might be suggesting. My mother has prayed for who my spouse will be for years. Since a was a toddler. She persisted in that prayer.
Now, I will acknowledge that what he is talking about really more is "self-focused" or as used else where here "narcissistic" fcous. It seems more on the praying to "Get." Mindset with comments on "having big dreams" and "praying specifically." It is also highly marketed bit that seems more into making money. Hard to find that not the case in the "Publishing" arena at all. But that is a whole other category. And please note, my comment was to be specific about what the problems are. It is far more useful than quickly saying "oh he is pushing magic circles."

Now, just in terms of the concept of "prayer circles" it is noteworthy to attend that there are roots to gnosticism and mormonism with a "prayer circle" focus, and so there is a lot of dangerous grounds with the metaphor which can be a shifting of language in order to accept what one otherwise would not.

[OnceWasLost]

Again, please indicate where he says such a thing. You are claiming he is saying to "empty your mind" with only a focus on your "big prayer" as a "mantra" then? My point is to soundly point out exactly what he says and what the issue is. I understand that is a lot of work. Far easier to make a quick decision and to put out labels and create arguements.

Now here may be an example of something he might be suggesting. My mother has prayed for who my spouse will be for years. Since a was a toddler. She persisted in that prayer.
Now, I will acknowledge that what he is talking about really more is "self-focused" or as used else where here "narcissistic" fcous. It seems more on the praying to "Get." Mindset with comments on "having big dreams" and "praying specifically." It is also highly marketed bit that seems more into making money. Hard to find that not the case in the "Publishing" arena at all. But that is a whole other category. And please note, my comment was to be specific about what the problems are. It is far more useful than quickly saying "oh he is pushing magic circles."

Now, just in terms of the concept of "prayer circles" it is noteworthy to attend that there are roots to gnosticism and mormonism with a "prayer circle" focus, and so there is a lot of dangerous grounds with the metaphor which can be a shifting of language in order to accept what one otherwise would not.

This will be my last attempt, and oddly you are coming close to pointing out the problems with his system, while asking me to do the same. If he were to ditch his whole contrived circle small study curriculum and replace it with a "let's walk the labyrinth to focus our prayer" small study group, would that be a problem in your estimation?

If not, then we have indeed reached a complete impasse.

[peacebringer]

This will be my last attempt, and oddly you are coming close to pointing out the problems with his system, while asking me to do the same. If he were to ditch his whole contrived circle small study curriculum and replace it with a "let's walk the labyrinth to focus our prayer" small study group, would that be a problem in your estimation?

If not, then we have indeed reached a complete impasse.

It only seems odd, to you because you "don't" know and asssuming i am just "defending" when my whole point is "sound discernment." Not the use of stereotyping and randomly throwing out labels. I find no value in walking "labyrinth" and there is great danger in the "inner search" as well as "external" We need not go seeking "Christ" in "fields" (externalizations) or "storehouse" (internalizations.) Now that being said, nothing I have run across with what Mark Batterson has said is pointing to an externalization. The problems are more toward what is referred to here as "narcissistic" theology. I have stated that I found 2 earlier writings to be sound. I did not like his change in approach with shift to Zondervan and move from focus on loving God and others. Having an "Amo dei" approach to life and move from there to "soul prints" and the "circle prayer" with a focus on "dreaming big." The problem is see are far different than the label of "magic circles vi a seeker pastor." I also am well aware that given Mark Batterson involvement with the prayer breakfasts and moving in the arena of political "power" that there is much that goes on that he can be part of. As far as I know, He like many many others in evengicalism maybe influenced by the likes of Doug Coe and Paul Temple or may have involvement with "the Family." I don't know any of that as fact however. See, I am simply making statements calling for sound examination and pointing out what is flawed and wrong in a right and truthful manner that also exemplies love. Simple labeling does not do the trick. Engaging in passive aggressive comments does not do the trick and only serves to set up walls. Stating this is flawed and why is far more useful.

I find at a minumum errors with a bad analogy that is similar to some very wrong stuff. Outside of the bad metaphor there is too heavy emphesis on self. So it may seem weird to you, but that is only because you do not know me.

[micah719]

Batterson is dodgy, for various reasons. The dogs have barked, the danger is evident, now we can get on with other things....

[OnceWasLost]

It only seems odd, to you because you "don't" know and asssuming i am just "defending" when my whole point is "sound discernment." Not the use of stereotyping and randomly throwing out labels. I find no value in walking "labyrinth" and there is great danger in the "inner search" as well as "external" We need not go seeking "Christ" in "fields" (externalizations) or "storehouse" (internalizations.) Now that being said, nothing I have run across with what Mark Batterson has said is pointing to an externalization. The problems are more toward what is referred to here as "narcissistic" theology. I have stated that I found 2 earlier writings to be sound. I did not like his change in approach with shift to Zondervan and move from focus on loving God and others. Having an "Amo dei" approach to life and move from there to "soul prints" and the "circle prayer" with a focus on "dreaming big." The problem is see are far different than the label of "magic circles vi a seeker pastor." I also am well aware that given Mark Batterson involvement with the prayer breakfasts and moving in the arena of political "power" that there is much that goes on that he can be part of. As far as I know, He like many many others in evengicalism maybe influenced by the likes of Doug Coe and Paul Temple or may have involvement with "the Family." I don't know any of that as fact however. See, I am simply making statements calling for sound examination and pointing out what is flawed and wrong in a right and truthful manner that also exemplies love. Simple labeling does not do the trick. Engaging in passive aggressive comments does not do the trick and only serves to set up walls. Stating this is flawed and why is far more useful.

I find at a minumum errors with a bad analogy that is similar to some very wrong stuff. Outside of the bad metaphor there is too heavy emphesis on self. So it may seem weird to you, but that is only because you do not know me.

Sigh*

I thought this was mainly my particular problems with his pet project, but you keep quoting others. My assessment of his version of a contemplative method still stands, and I have given what I figured was an ample amount of examples how his gimmick is no different than other centering methods. I further explained he has his dose of speaking things into his prayer as other WOF proponents do. You are obviously not persuaded, so I will just stop trying.

[peacebringer]

Sigh*

I thought this was mainly my particular problems with his pet project, but you keep quoting others. My assessment of his version of a contemplative method still stands, and I have given what I figured was an ample amount of examples how his gimmick is no different than other centering methods. I further explained he has his dose of speaking things into his prayer as other WOF proponents do. You are obviously not persuaded, so I will just stop trying.

Umm, it isn't so much the "problems" with Mark Batterson and his latest "product" or "project" as you will. Rather, it is about the way the "criticism" has been engaged in. Not via actual criticism but my making pronouncements with nothing to back it up. It is logically stating a premise and providing no logic proofs for the premise. The only support "proofs" of anything has come from my own examination.

I think part of the problem is you are trying to persuade me, yet I am not looking to be persuade of anything. If the concerns are valid it should be easy enough to document and provide sound delination of the same. I recognize it takes time, yet no one will be persuaded if all you do is simply make statement. Here is part of the problem. Simply making statements, with heavy use of pejoratives does nothing to convince those who may be going down that road and really just gets you good vibes and such from those who have seen and agree. In other words it does nothing to shed light to the bling. It is pointing to those seeing and saying, hey that over there is pretty crappy, don't you agree. And others and can, yes, you are right that is awful. Then can sit there and point there is "another" one and soon it is just a contest to see who can spot first or be the first to get out information on how bad something is, with no real concern for the lost, the deceived, just a chance to have the "gotcha" quotient. There even at some level can exist, okay, good we pointed that one out, lets move on to the next, hurry up lets find it.

Note I am not saying do not criticize or examine. All I am saying is doing so soundly, with full care and for consideration for those caught up in the varied webs of deception. In other words, I advocate the kind of approach outlined in the stickies and am stating that posts such as this one do not seem to match. There is something off.

let me ask you this, is such behavior of God? Now, it is entirely possible that my reactions and read here can be off the mark. odds are will just generate anger, but these words need to be said. Read and pray over them, seek God over matters.